Jump to content
270soft Forum

falk

Members
  • Content Count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About falk

  • Rank
    Political Geek

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. falk

    Obamacare

    Again, with due respect, the Court has determined beforehand -- in unanimous decisions as well no less -- that this interpretation of the commerce clause is inadequate. Now, don't get me wrong, a faulty and overly-broad interpretation of the clause can lead to examples of judicial activism practiced by both ends of the court, originalist and contextualist/purposivist. My qualm with your assessment is primarily based around the evidence that you've cited to back your claim. For obvious reasons, the Founding Fathers did not create a commerce clause to look at individual transactions subjec
  2. falk

    Obamacare

    Sounds good, please let me know what you find! As you might be able to tell, I have a deep and professionally vested interest in the law and the court; I'm sure anything you find on the matter would be of similar interest to me as much as it would be to you!
  3. falk

    Obamacare

    I see what you're saying, the only thing that I would raise an issue with is the phrasing of the particular term "party lines." However, I think we can both agree -- because you also seem to have strong opinions on the court, many of which I respect greatly -- that the court, in closer and more controversial decisions, tends to be divided on more doctrinal lines. Judges rarely leave their professions, so you have defense bar/trial bar type lawyers turned judges, both of whom practice and excel in very different things as a result (Defense bar lawyers tend to refer to standing of a case, thus l
  4. falk

    Obamacare

    I feel like I have to come in and defend the work of the court as not necessarily divided "firmly on party lines." The appointment process certainly has, but I do not believe that the actual Court itself has. Unless you were suggesting that everything but the Court divides firmly on party lines, I think the core intent of what I had said was more primarily oriented around saying that I believed Roberts to be a political figure oriented more around the institution of the Court than party lines; similar to how a First Lady may be a political figure in traditionally being entrusted to keep the pr
  5. falk

    Obamacare

    That's actually a really interesting take on it because I agree with you that the process will likely be politicized and that's exactly why I think Chief Justice Roberts will side with the liberals on the court to reverse this decision. If you look at Chief Justice Roberts' confirmation hearings, he talks a lot about the reputation of the Court and, in essence, its relevance and respect as an institution. His time on the bench has been marked by an uptick in unanimous decisions and a lack of sweeping decisions on core political doctrines relating to legislation, a indication that Roberts isn't
  6. falk

    Obamacare

    Interesting, do you not think that the enormity of the insurance market -- especially the health care sector -- in the economy warrants Court deference to Congress to interfere, citing the broad scope of the commerce clause in interstate commerce? For one, we can agree surely that everyone is in the insurance "market", whether one actually buys insurance or not. The practical considerations by the Court should then logically conclude that -- because the commerce clause doesn't only allow for the regulation of active, transactional commerce -- Congress is merely trying to rectify the issue of
  7. falk

    Obamacare

    On a more conceptual sense, do you think that even if the bill was reviewed specifically under the lens of commerce-clause application, that the individual mandate would be found unconstitutional?
  8. falk

    Obamacare

    A few questions: Under what context would the debate change to one about the commerce clause? Even if it does turn into a debate about the commerce clause, can you explain why the decision would then be upheld? Asking out of curiosity seeing as how I still don't necessarily understand that argument.
  9. falk

    Obamacare

    If we agree that the primary issue was one of standing and not the heated epistemological jurisprudential debate around federalism and the commerce clause, then surely we can agree that any sort of appeal to the highest court would result in a reversal of this sweeping decision made in Texas.
  10. falk

    Obamacare

    Okay, so basically you are primarily arguing that the Court found the individual mandate to be constitutional based on the fact that it was a tax. This being the case because of the constitutional theory that while the government can regulate interstate commerce, it may not force it. I am arguing that the court's argument was more based on standing. Now, was what you reference part of the court's decision? Sure. But primarily the court found issue with the application of the Anti-Injunction Act and, subsequently, standing for the challenge. This makes sense as well in an abstract sense:
  11. falk

    Obamacare

    Okay, I think we can agree with the select application of severability in this case, but that's not my main argument. I am suggesting that your interpretation of the Supreme Court's view on the individual mandate was not particularly correct, and as a result severability is not even relevant.
  12. falk

    Obamacare

    No, with all due respect, the Court's application of the commerce clause was restricted significantly in scope to only a few questions in NFIB. In NFIB the main point of contention behind the individual mandate was actually standing, with provided the court a sufficient reason to maintain its application in the ACA. I agreed with you to an extent about the individual mandate, however the reasoning that you provided is not particularly correct with respect to the greater application of the commerce clause. And the decision would throw a wrench in the ACA, if the court stipulated some form
  13. falk

    Obamacare

    If we can agree that NFIB v. Sebelius, in a number of different opinions, opined that the individual mandate was constitutional, I find it difficult to see the court changing it's opinion on the topic just a few years later. Because the main jurisprudential thrust behind this particular decision was oriented around saying that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, and because the entire bill could not operate in its core intent without it, that decision effectively made the whole bill moot. This issue has already been directly adjudicated by the courts, as we agreed upon, and I cannot s
  14. falk

    Obamacare

    Under what circumstances do you think a higher court would uphold the decision made by this court? Legitimately curious
  15. falk

    Obamacare

    I doubt this decision will have any actual impact other than move the topic of healthcare back to the forefront of political debate (where it has been already for years.) 1. The court refused to issue an injunction. 2. The decision will almost certainly be reversed on appeal.
×
×
  • Create New...